According to this mornings League Weekly, the BBC are showing England's matches live as well as the semis and the final, but the other broadcaster isn't decided as yet. Apparently Sky have pulled out of the bidding after their first bid was rejected. An official announcement is due in 'the next week or so'.

The bit in bold always makes me think it is a load of tosh, but I really hope it is.

I think Sky offer a great service, and a deal with key games on the BBC with the rest on Sky seems a perfect scenario to me.

The bit in bold always makes me think it is a load of tosh, but I really hope it is.

I think Sky offer a great service, and a deal with key games on the BBC with the rest on Sky seems a perfect scenario to me.

Well, we've been here before with the NRL rights just a couple of weeks back. Supposedly well informed people were stating that BT Vision had that sewn up, but that turned out to be rubbish.

Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me, as Sky don't appear to be putting too much store on anything other than SL. They didn't show last years autumn internationals, or the Aus v NZ test. And the figures for last years Exiles matches were average at best. If this story is true, perhaps Sky would rather have exclusive rights, and therefore don't see enough value in sharing the rights with the BBC.

All speculation at the moment, but some sort of announcement would definitely help the ticket sales as, like a lot of other people, I'm waiting to see what the kick off times for games are before buying anymore tickets.

The bit in bold always makes me think it is a load of tosh, but I really hope it is.

The item is in both the RL weeklies.

I think Sky offer a great service, and a deal with key games on the BBC with the rest on Sky seems a perfect scenario to me.

Sky is offering the poorest service we have had with them so far this season. They have consistently withdrawn from showing matches: they pulled out of the Championship and then the internationals last year and now they are messing around with the two games they show us this weekend because of Friday night soccer. Had they pulled out of the Championship and shown a third Superleague match each week then I would say that their service would have improved but it hasn't. We may have more rugby league orientated programmes than ever before but they don't hesitate to mess around with the timeslots every week, without fail, on nearly all of them. Even the BBC has stuck to its new times for the Superleague Show for longer than Sky has stuck to its original slots for the programmes they show each week. And the Superleague Show is much improved this season. Premier Sports do a better job of their match commentary now than do Sky, which is so outdated and trivial as to be painful to listen to. But Sky have us tied up for five years at relative peanuts so I guess they get to call the shots on all fronts.

I do hope that the BBC not only have the rights to the internationals but show them at good times and with good wrap-around coverage because we desperately need the exposure. Can't beat being on the BBC. My only caveat would be that the games are competitive otherwise such accessible viewing could have the reverse effect.

Sky is offering the poorest service we have had with them so far this season. They have consistently withdrawn from showing matches: they pulled out of the Championship and then the internationals last year and now they are messing around with the two games they show us this weekend because of Friday night soccer.

Had they pulled out of the Championship and shown a third Superleague match each week then I would say that their service would have improved but it hasn't. We may have more rugby league orientated programmes than ever before but they don't hesitate to mess around with the timeslots every week, without fail, on nearly all of them. Even the BBC has stuck to its new times for the Superleague Show for longer than Sky has stuck to its original slots for the programmes they show each week. And the Superleague Show is much improved this season. Premier Sports do a better job of their match commentary now than do Sky, which is so outdated and trivial as to be painful to listen to. But Sky have us tied up for five years at relative peanuts so I guess they get to call the shots on all fronts.

I do hope that the BBC not only have the rights to the internationals but show them at good times and with good wrap-around coverage because we desperately need the exposure. Can't beat being on the BBC. My only caveat would be that the games are competitive otherwise such accessible viewing could have the reverse effect.I don't share your views on Sky.In terms of stopping showing Championship games and NRL - you could argue that competition have simply snapped up those rights.In terms of Internationals, we have no idea whether it was a strategic RFL decision to go with a terrestrial broadcaster. You are right that we do have more RL programmes nowadays on Sky, let’s also not forget that they now show Challenge Cup games too. The time slot thing doesn’t bother me so much tbh, it is pretty standard for things to be flexible nowadays, it is very very rare that we don’t get a Friday night slot. The fact that we are up against international Cricket and Football may mean that we have moved on this occasion, I don’t see that as a massive issue.I agree that the BBC having coverage would be very good, but without Sky being involved, I suspect that we will see fewer games broadcast live, and that worries me.

No Sky would be a big blow, not least because we won't have Eddie and Stevo hyping the competition up every week. I hope that if Sky aren't involved, that the other matches are available on a FTA broadcaster and not buried away on Premier Sports or something.

Nah. They pulled out. They were quoted as saying that the Championship offered nothing extra. That's why the RFL ended up giving the rights to Premier Sports for nowt but a tenner for introducing a friend. I have to say though that Premier Sports do a much, much better job than Sky ever did (and in fact their commentary is better than the present Sky Superleague commentary).

In terms of Internationals, we have no idea whether it was a strategic RFL decision to go with a terrestrial broadcaster.

As I said above, the RFL sold the rights to the world cup coverage to IMG Media who have total control over deciding who shows what.

Nah. They pulled out. They were quoted as saying that the Championship offered nothing extra. [size=3][font=Arial]As I said above, the RFL sold the rights to the world cup coverage to IMG Media who have total control over deciding who shows what.

As I said above, the RFL sold the rights to the world cup coverage to IMG Media who have total control over deciding who shows what.

Isn't it just a case of IMG being the agency doing the actual selling for the RFL/RLIF - they will need to get signoff for any deal.

They aren't just sold to IMG and left to it, as far as I'm aware.

According to Martyn Sadlers piece in the League Express, the RLIF sold the WC rights to IMG to get an assured sum of money in the bank. Any decision is then down to IMG. Personally, I thought IMG merely acted as an agent for the governing bodies in selling on the rights and the governing body themselves had the final say, but it's not how Mr Sadler has described it in the paper.

According to Martyn Sadlers piece in the League Express, the RLIF sold the WC rights to IMG to get an assured sum of money in the bank. Any decision is then down to IMG. Personally, I thought IMG merely acted as an agent for the governing bodies in selling on the rights and the governing body themselves had the final say, but it's not how Mr Sadler has described it in the paper.

Does seem strange as your understanding is how I have always known TV rights to work.

Doesn't really make sense tbh as if the RFL had no say then surely they could just name the ko times and tell the broadcasters to suck it up.